President Biden on Monday ripped the International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutor for seeking arrest warrants against Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. “The ICC p…
I’m sure you can do better than that. A Zionist means simply that that you believe there should be a Jewish state. The word liberal simply means you are willing to be open to ideas that are not your own. Neither are complicated. Neither are pejoratives.
I’m sorry if the need for common definition offends you. Yet, still the use of these terms by Republicans and Palestinian protestors seems the same to me, sorry.
doubling down on the stance of not understanding linguistics isn’t the play you seem to think it is
the wikipedia article on zionism is several thousand words long, and you seem to think it’s possible to accurately boil that down to a one or two sentence dictionary entry
I’m sure Republicans have many definitions for a liberal.
it’s more that they don’t have a definition at all
they use it similarly to “woke”, in that its a nebulous word that takes on any given meaning that they want given the context
if you tried to distill its myriad of uses into an actual definition you’d get something like “person i disagree with to the point of dislike”, at which point the dumb part becomes making an assertion as utterly vacuous as “i don’t like people i don’t like”
I’m boiling it down because this isn’t the kind of platform to express a thousand words. I use the dictionary, as you should. You seem to make a word which it is not. That may work in your world and it may work in the Republican world, but that doesn’t mean people with a common language have to accept it. Both you and Republicans are trying demean others using language which is not applicable.
you’re not avoiding excessive detail in a definition due to a limited character space, you’re saying that a word can literally only ever have the precise meaning ascribed to it by the dictionary
those are two completely different things and it’s astonishing that you would even try to make an argument that bad after opening this discussion with “i’m sure you can do better than that”
i’m not trying to justify my use of language, i’m explaining why you’re wrong, and you’re responding by gesturing vaguely towards the concept of a dictionary
There shouldn’t be a Jewish state though. It’s a different thing. I don’t think there should be a Christian state or a Muslim state either. Or a Mormon state or a Scientologist state.
There were Jews living in Palestine before it was carved up and given to the zionists. Why did it need to be turned into a Jewish state to the exclusion of people who have always lived there? At one point they were planning to carve up Argentina and South america. Which still would have been wrong. Though perhaps slightly less insane than what they did.
Since the beginning, groups of people with the same religious values have grouped together to form communities and then nations. There should no exception here.
Yeah. There should. It’s always been a bad idea. And historically part of the reason they were persecuted. Not that it justified it. Nor does it justify them doing it in return.
So you’re saying we should stop resisting and just give the fascists the US as a Christian homeland? Help me understand.
You do understand that Isreal is 40% Muslim, just as in the US only 68% identify as Christian. Just because a country starts in a certain way doesn’t mean they don’t evolve. But, sometimes they don’t for a time, especially Theocracies.
And they are not treated equal. So you are saying that we should give America to the fascists? I mean after all if the Jewish homeland is 40% Muslim at other 60% is partially Christian as well. So less than 60% of the people in the Jewish homeland are Jewish. But it’s still their homeland somehow? Then Christians with 64% of American population should of course have rights to turn America into their locked down Homeland too.
Look I see you post a lot and I generally agree with you. But this is a little too far off the reservation for this indian.
Muslims in Isreal are a minority, but they do hold office and are cops, etc. They were murdered last October too Not too many Christians in Isreal. I never liked Isreal declaring itself a Jewish state, but if Christians had their wish in the US…so, I can .understand hardliners in Isreal. I’m an atheist, so I’m always the minority.
No. But you all aren’t leaving and letting me and my relatives live on our land undisturbed. It’s kind of a double standard.
In all seriousness. An Injustice somewhere does not justify Injustice everywhere. People should be treated more equal if not equally entirely. That seems like a pretty decent deal right? You all get to live on our ancestral lands we all just have to treat each other equally. Easy and pretty sweet right?
“liberal” is significantly less specific in its implications, both in terms of modern day parlance and historical roots, than “zionist”
I’m sure you can do better than that. A Zionist means simply that that you believe there should be a Jewish state. The word liberal simply means you are willing to be open to ideas that are not your own. Neither are complicated. Neither are pejoratives.
Did you ignore the modern parlance part? A zionist is an Israeli nationalist. There’s a bit more to it than “Israel should exist.”
You can make up meanings all you want, but I’ll rely on a dictionary. I’m sure Republicans have many definitions for a liberal.
And when I say “nick fuentes is a nazi” do you understand what I’m saying, or do you point out that he’s not actually a member of the NSDAP?
I’m sorry if the need for common definition offends you. Yet, still the use of these terms by Republicans and Palestinian protestors seems the same to me, sorry.
To be clear, you don’t agree that nick fuentes is a nazi?
2 hours later edit: anyone else find it funny how people with terrible opinions never answer direct questions and prefer to argue semantics?
doubling down on the stance of not understanding linguistics isn’t the play you seem to think it is
the wikipedia article on zionism is several thousand words long, and you seem to think it’s possible to accurately boil that down to a one or two sentence dictionary entry
it’s more that they don’t have a definition at all
they use it similarly to “woke”, in that its a nebulous word that takes on any given meaning that they want given the context
if you tried to distill its myriad of uses into an actual definition you’d get something like “person i disagree with to the point of dislike”, at which point the dumb part becomes making an assertion as utterly vacuous as “i don’t like people i don’t like”
it’s completely dissimilar
I’m boiling it down because this isn’t the kind of platform to express a thousand words. I use the dictionary, as you should. You seem to make a word which it is not. That may work in your world and it may work in the Republican world, but that doesn’t mean people with a common language have to accept it. Both you and Republicans are trying demean others using language which is not applicable.
you’re not avoiding excessive detail in a definition due to a limited character space, you’re saying that a word can literally only ever have the precise meaning ascribed to it by the dictionary
those are two completely different things and it’s astonishing that you would even try to make an argument that bad after opening this discussion with “i’m sure you can do better than that”
Still trying to justify your use of language…you need to be able to spit Zionist. That really says something about you.
i’m not trying to justify my use of language, i’m explaining why you’re wrong, and you’re responding by gesturing vaguely towards the concept of a dictionary
There shouldn’t be a Jewish state though. It’s a different thing. I don’t think there should be a Christian state or a Muslim state either. Or a Mormon state or a Scientologist state.
There were Jews living in Palestine before it was carved up and given to the zionists. Why did it need to be turned into a Jewish state to the exclusion of people who have always lived there? At one point they were planning to carve up Argentina and South america. Which still would have been wrong. Though perhaps slightly less insane than what they did.
Since the beginning, groups of people with the same religious values have grouped together to form communities and then nations. There should no exception here.
Yeah. There should. It’s always been a bad idea. And historically part of the reason they were persecuted. Not that it justified it. Nor does it justify them doing it in return.
So you’re saying we should stop resisting and just give the fascists the US as a Christian homeland? Help me understand.
You do understand that Isreal is 40% Muslim, just as in the US only 68% identify as Christian. Just because a country starts in a certain way doesn’t mean they don’t evolve. But, sometimes they don’t for a time, especially Theocracies.
And they are not treated equal. So you are saying that we should give America to the fascists? I mean after all if the Jewish homeland is 40% Muslim at other 60% is partially Christian as well. So less than 60% of the people in the Jewish homeland are Jewish. But it’s still their homeland somehow? Then Christians with 64% of American population should of course have rights to turn America into their locked down Homeland too.
Look I see you post a lot and I generally agree with you. But this is a little too far off the reservation for this indian.
Well are people treated equal in the US?
Muslims in Isreal are a minority, but they do hold office and are cops, etc. They were murdered last October too Not too many Christians in Isreal. I never liked Isreal declaring itself a Jewish state, but if Christians had their wish in the US…so, I can .understand hardliners in Isreal. I’m an atheist, so I’m always the minority.
No. But you all aren’t leaving and letting me and my relatives live on our land undisturbed. It’s kind of a double standard.
In all seriousness. An Injustice somewhere does not justify Injustice everywhere. People should be treated more equal if not equally entirely. That seems like a pretty decent deal right? You all get to live on our ancestral lands we all just have to treat each other equally. Easy and pretty sweet right?